adding eco relations definitions

[diatomsRcool]

Adding definitions for

• eats
• is eaten by
• provide nutrients for
• aquires nutrients from
• parasite of
• parasitized by
• has pathogen
• pathogen of
  For issue Missing definitions for some ecological interactions #646

[diatomsRcool]

I'm sure these need some word-smithing.....

[sierra-moxon]

can the relationship between growth media and a micro organism as a use case fit with one of these relations?

[diatomsRcool]

Yes, Sierra, I think the "acquires nutrients from" would work.

[ddooley]

The FoodOn team of course is interested in some of these term definitions, namely "eats" and "is eaten by". For eats, "A feeding relationship where one organism consumes another (either in whole or in part) through a type of mouth or other oral opening." We were just wondering if there is a more limiting word or label that conveys semantics of feeding on a single organism (or piece) directly. More generally people "eat" salt, water, and multi-component foods, but this isn't included in the trophic sense of "eats". However we haven't been able to think of a simple solution to distinguish eating broadly vs the specific animal or part case.

[ddooley]

There's a similar comment for the "acquires nutrients from" shortcut relation. I see cattle feed is often supplemented with salt. "Animal feed salt is an essential addition to animal feed. Salt maintains the mineral balance of the animals at the right level and keeps your livestock healthy. It is advisable to opt for sea salt because this type of salt also contains additional essential minerals and trace elements." This relation as proposed requires us to use some other relation to connect an organism and other material entity nutritional sources.

[diatomsRcool]

I struggled with similar issues as well. Unfortunately, interactions are separated as abiotic/biotic and biotic/biotic higher up in the hierarchy. We would need two "eats" one for biotic/biotic and one for abiotic/biotic - but this isn't that good as many foods are a combination. The line between abiotic/biotic isn't always very sharp. What if we elevate the "eats" and "acquires nutrients from" relations to be children of biotically interacts with? I can change the definition to include abiotic foods.

[ddooley]

That sounds like a good solution! (And I can see that these relations can operate in parallel with the other ones like "kills" and "preys on").

[diatomsRcool]

Do we think "eats" should be a child of "acquires nutrients from"? One possible reason we cannot do that is organisms that eat rocks for the purpose of helping with digestion.

[ddooley]

Indeed, eating isn't always motivated by nutritional intake. Rock is a good example. Also, arguably caffeine isn't doing anything nutritious for the consumer, but its a motivator for eating.

[diatomsRcool]

definitions updated

[wdduncan]

Do we think "eats" should be a child of "acquires nutrients from"? One possible reason we cannot do that is organisms that eat rocks for the purpose of helping with digestion.

Should acquires nutrients from be a child of eats? The defn for eats mentions oral openings. Doesn't seem like this would apply to plants, but plans to acquires nutrients from some source.

[ddooley]

As well, covering all cases, Parenteral / intravenous feeding enables nutrients to be collected directly, so 'acquires nutrients from' is not a subclass of eats on that count either.

Is eats meant to be restricted to animal organisms? The only other example I can think of are coniverous plants - e.g. venus fly traps. But there digestive processes happen at surface of plant?

[anitacaron]

Technically, it's approved, but it still needs an ontology review.

[github-actions]

This PR has not seen any activity in 90 days and has been marked as stale. If it is no longer needed, please close the PR. Otherwise, please update the PR with a status update.